Letters to the Editor

Thessaly vs. McMurray Test for Diagnosis of Meniscal Injuries

 

Am Fam Physician. 2019 Aug 15;100(4):200-201.

Original Article: Knee Pain in Adults and Adolescents: The Initial Evaluation

Issue Date: November 1, 2018

See additional reader comments at: https://www.aafp.org/afp/2018/1101/p576.html

To the Editor: In this article on knee pain in adults, the authors contend that the Thessaly test is an accurate test for diagnosing meniscal injury. A 2012 article in American Family Physician1 reached similar conclusions regarding the Thessaly test. This was a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence available at the time; however, the patients in the studies cited in that article were diagnosed and treated at referral centers with high prevalence rates of meniscal injuries. Since 2012, additional evidence has suggested that the Thessaly test is not as accurate as initially reported.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies available through the end of 20142 concluded that the Thessaly test has similar, and perhaps slightly superior, accuracy when compared to the McMurray and joint line tenderness tests. However, the authors concluded that none of the three tests are particularly accurate for diagnosing meniscal injuries.

More recent studies have produced results that make us further question the accuracy of the Thessaly test (see accompanying table25).

 Enlarge     Print

TABLE

Accuracy of Thessaly and McMurray Tests for Detecting Meniscal Injuries

StudyTestNumber of patientsLR+LR−Probability of meniscal injury if test is positive*Probability of meniscal injury if test is negative*

Smith, et al.2

Thessaly

490

5.6

0.28

38.3%

3%

McMurray

1,234

3.2

0.52

26.2%

5.5%

Snoeker, et al.3

Thessaly†

121

1.07

0.88

10.7%

8.9%

0.91

1.12

9.2%

11.1%

Goossens, et al.4

Thessaly

593

1.37

0.68

13.1%

7.0%

McMurray

1.27

0.67

12.4%

6.9%

Blyth, et al.5

Thessaly (primary care)

282

1.08

0.87

10.7%

8.8%

McMurray (primary care)

1.33

0.74

12.9%

7.6%

Thessaly (musculoskeletal clinicians)

1.38

0.691

13.3%

7.1%

McMurray (musculoskeletal clinicians)

1.72

0.50

15.9%

5.3%


LR+ = positive likelihood ratio; LR− = negative likelihood ratio.

*—Based on a pretest probability of 10%.

†—This study reported separate data for each of the two examiners.

Information from references 25.

TABLE

Accuracy of Thessaly and McMurray Tests for Detecting Meniscal Injuries

StudyTestNumber of patientsLR+LR−Probability of meniscal injury if test is positive*Probability of meniscal injury if test is negative*

Smith, et al.2

Thessaly

490

5.6

0.28

38.3%

3%

McMurray

1,234

3.2

0.52

26.2%

5.5%

Snoeker, et al.3

Thessaly†

121

1.07

0.88

10.7%

8.9%

0.91

1.12

9.2%

11.1%

Goossens, et al.4

Thessaly

593

1.37

0.68

13.1%

7.0%

McMurray

1.27

0.67

12.4%

6.9%

Blyth, et al.5

Thessaly (primary care)

282

1.08

0.87

10.7%

8.8%

McMurray (primary care)

1.33

0.74

12.9%

7.6%

Thessaly (musculoskeletal clinicians)

1.38

0.691

13.3%

7.1%

McMurray (musculoskeletal clinicians)

1.72

0.50

15.9%

5.3%


LR+ = positive likelihood ratio; LR− = negative likelihood ratio.

*—Based on a pretest probability of 10%.

†—This study reported separate data for each of the two examiners.

Information from references 25.

The evidence summarized in the table indicates that the initial results of high accuracy of the Thessaly test are not replicated in later studies. The outlying results reported by Grover1 may be explained in part by nonblinded examiners as well as a test population skewed toward high pretest probability of meniscal injury. We conclude, contrary to assertions in the reference article, that the Thessaly test is nonsuperior to the McMurray test in the diagnosis of meniscal injuries. Moreover, there is little evidence to support using either of these maneuvers in the evaluation of knee pain, particularly in the primary care population.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial disclosures.

References

show all references

1. Grover M. Evaluating acutely injured patients for internal derangement of the knee. Am Fam Physician. 2012;85(3):247–252. Accessed July 18, 2019. https://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/0201/p247.html...

2. Smith BE, Thacker D, Crewesmith A, et al. Special tests for assessing meniscal tears within the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evid Based Med. 2015;20(3):88–97.

3. Snoeker BA, Lindeboom R, Zwinderman AH, et al. Detecting meniscal tears in primary care: reproducibility and accuracy of 2 weight-bearing tests and 1 non-weight-bearing test. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(9):693–702.

4. Goossens P, Keijsers E, van Geenen RJ, et al. Validity of the Thessaly test in evaluating meniscal tears compared with arthroscopy: a diagnostic accuracy study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(1):18–24, B1.

5. Blyth M, Anthony I, Francq B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the Thessaly test, standardised clinical history and other clinical examinations tests (Apley's, McMurray's and joint line tenderness) for meniscal tears in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(62):1–62.

In Reply: Thank you for your careful review and consideration of our article. We welcome the opportunity for additional discussion of physical examination maneuvers in the initial evaluation of knee pain.

Physical examination techniques remain a challenge to accurately study. Patient selection, timing from injury, previous patient functional level, examination setting, provider skills/training, and concomitant injuries are all potential confounders.

Our assessment is based on the volume of papers suggestive of Thessaly being superior. Many additional references were ultimately not included in our article because of reference limitations. The article you cited supports our conclusion of higher sensitivity and specificity for Thessaly.1 Added to this are articles by Karachalios, et al., yielding 92% sensitivity and 96% specificity for Thessaly2; and Harrison, et al., yielding 90% sensitivity and 97% specificity.3

Our interpretation of the data surrounding Thessaly continues to support its use (strength of recommendation taxonomy rating C), but we also recommend it as a patient-controlled examination technique. This subtle difference can increase a patient's comfort level and should not be overlooked.

We thank you for highlighting the challenges inherent in physical examination technique research as well as the ongoing debate about examinations in general.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.


The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Air Force Medical Service, the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, or the U.S. Air Force at large.

References

1. Smith BE, Thacker D, Crewesmith A, et al. Special tests for assessing meniscal tears within the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evid Based Med. 2015;20(3):88–97.

2. Karachalios T, Hantes M, Zibis AH, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of a new clinical test (the Thessaly test) for early detection of meniscal tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(5):955–962.

3. Harrison BK, Abell BE, Gibson TW. The Thessaly test for detection of meniscal tears: validation of a new physical examination technique for primary care medicine. Clin J Sport Med. 2009;19(1):9–12.

Send letters to afplet@aafp.org, or 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211-2680. Include your complete address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Letters should be fewer than 400 words and limited to six references, one table or figure, and three authors.

Letters submitted for publication in AFP must not be submitted to any other publication. Possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed at time of submission. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting the AAFP permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. The editors may edit letters to meet style and space requirements.

This series is coordinated by Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, Associate Deputy Editor for AFP Online.

 

 

Copyright © 2019 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions

MOST RECENT ISSUE


Sep 15, 2019

Access the latest issue of American Family Physician

Read the Issue


Email Alerts

Don't miss a single issue. Sign up for the free AFP email table of contents.

Sign Up Now

Navigate this Article